| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but anybody who looks at this scenario and says the paladin should have taken the time to talk to the fiend in the middle of a room full of potential innocent victims is obviously metagaming and ignoring human nature.
Under intense stress, a person will respond based on their applicable training. If they lack any applicable training, they will freeze, run away, or do something else not very useful. It's easy to analyze situations from every possible angle when you have all the time in the world, but if you're role playing this situation realistically, the paladin slays the fiend every single time. Why? Because that's his training.
I've spent 17 years working in emergency services, and let me tell you guys how this works: you make snap decisions, in unfamiliar surroundings, with inadequate time and insufficient information. Why do you have to do it that way? Because you don't always have time to ask every single question you'd like to ask. Because sometimes if you take the time to gather all the information you need, someone is gonna die in the meantime.
So, if you're playing this paladin realistically, he's not going to stop and ask the fiend 20 questions. He walks into a room, sees the situation, identifies a threat and responds according to his training. Fiend dies.
If you want to be unrealistic and metagame it, the paladin starts up a conversation with the fiend, determines it's not a threat, and they become best friends forever.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but anybody who looks at this scenario and says the paladin should have taken the time to talk to the fiend in the middle of a room full of potential innocent victims is obviously metagaming and ignoring human nature.
There are a number of things the paladin could have done that don't require him to open his mouth, let alone talk to the fiend.
Under intense stress, a person will respond based on their applicable training. If they lack any applicable training, they will freeze, run away, or do something else not very useful. It's easy to analyze situations from every possible angle when you have all the time in the world, but if you're role playing this situation realistically, the paladin slays the fiend every single time. Why? Because that's his training.
I'm not sure if it's part of the actual character sheet or just something that was added through the posts, but the paladin in question is listed as not having Knowledge (planes), so in this instance, it's not his training.
I've spent 17 years working in emergency services, and let me tell you guys how this works: you make snap decisions, in unfamiliar surroundings, with inadequate time and insufficient information. Why do you have to do it that way? Because you don't always have time to ask every single question you'd like to ask. Because sometimes if you take the time to gather all the information you need, someone is gonna die in the meantime.
I spent a few years overseas and if you don't take the time to get positive identification of enemy forces, that someone you rush pull the trigger on could've been innocent, and you've just ruined a whole lot of lives, including your own.
That's why with a single rank you can take 10 and identify common demons. You need a lot of ranks to identify abilities and weaknesses.How does he know it's a demon? No knowledge ranks in Planes remember?You don't need many knowledge ranks to determine that it's a demon. You need the knowledge ranks to determine its powers, weaknesses, and tendencies.Incorrect:
In fact you need it to identify common regular things like:
Identify a common plant or animal Nature 10
Know the names of the planes Planes 10
Recognize current plane Planes 15
Identify a creature's planar origin Planes 20What you are talking about is this single entry:
Identify a monster's abilities and weaknesses Varies 10 + monster's CRConclusion you must have knowledge relevant to identify demons and demon types (if you need it for plants,animals) otherwise you are saying it is easier to identify demons than to tell the difference between a cat and a dog.....
but that still takes some time allowing the other characters to see what is the situation
If a GM hates Paladins so much that he has to create situations like this, he/she should just ban Paladins at his/her table.
What about other situations not nearly as contrived as my undead example earlier?
|
How does he know it's a demon? No knowledge ranks in Planes remember?
He has taken a Holy Oath to destroy fiends, and he is completely untrained in the skill that would allow him to identify fiends?
I would have serious reservations against allowing that character at my table.
Not to mention it seems to contradict the original description of the situation:
she suddenly shifts into a Succubus! A fiend! Of the CHAOTIC subtype
That sounds to me like a successful knowledge check to identify a succubus, which would be a "positive identification of enemy forces." His belief that the villagers were charmed also implies that he's aware succubi can charm people.
If he failed the knowledge check to identify that it was a demon, it would be another story. It would also be another story if he positively identified the demon as a species that would not plausibly be found surrounded by charmed villagers (such as a glabrezu) because it would be obvious that something odd is going on.
The only reason this is a justifiable misunderstanding is that it was presented as a situation where the paladin identified a succubus and was aware that succubi are subtle manipulators, making it dangerous to give her any chance to "explain herself" (read: enchant the paladin or use the charmed villagers as human shields).
|
|
If a GM hates Paladins so much that he has to create situations like this, he/she should just ban Paladins at his/her table.What about other situations not nearly as contrived as my undead example earlier?
You're right, it's entirely pointless to look at the situation in the OP because the paladin's ignorance distracts from the actual question:
Is it OK for a paladin to commit an evil act if their specific oaths require it, for example to kill a non-evil creature because they took an oath to destroy that type of (almost always evil) creature?
I would say that that RAW makes this a no-win situation, because RAW does not allow a paladin to prioritize. Paladin falls either way.
Understandably most people don't like to accept a situation where the paladin always falls. The positions I've seen in this thread:
1) Hypothetically this could happen and the paladin would fall either way, but it's contrived and the GM would be a dick to let it happen in game.
2) It would never happen because a demon who is redeemed really should be obviously transformed into something not demonic, as seen the at least one Paizo AP, regardless of the rules under the (evil) subtype.
3) The requirement to be good and do no evil is more important than specific oaths, so the paladin falls for knowingly killing a succubus paladin (or any other non-evil member of a "typically evil" race/species).
I don't think I've seen an argument for "racist oaths beat the goodness mandate" though I think that would be an interesting basis if you wanted to create a setting with more morally grey paladins. Just be aware that some people like paladins specifically because they are not grey.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Oath may be stupid as it can, but the standard Paladin code ovverides it in case of conflict.
@Weirdo: incorrect, if the paladin breaks the oath but not the standard paladin code, he doesn't fall, he just loses the oath specific powers.
If he breaks the paladin code, he loses all the powers, oath included.
There should be a prestige class for morally gray Paladins...
...People seem to be confusing the OPs Paladin with MY Paladin I mentioned a couple of times (mine being the one with no ranks in Kn. Planes).
As for your options being "kill it immediately or freeze on the spot", b~@~%*&*. Nobody said he needed to have a conversation with the Succubus, unless you consider this a conversation.
Paladin: "Surrender or die."
If the succubus doesn't surrender, then the Paladin is more justified in killing it.
Technically speaking this doesn't even take a combat round. If the succubus surrenders, combat is over. There is no Initiative order to be held to, and she can drop prone with her hands behind her head with no issue.
Save your ranks man. The eternal understanding trait lets you do the same thing with all knowledge checks for DC lower than 15......
I usually put that extra rank into spellcraft.....
That's not how detect evil works...
Fine, fine, I'll bow out. I will never be able to understand why people seem to want to unfairly punish a fellow player because he or she wants to play a paladin though. I just don't get where all that hate for these players comes from. I never see these threads pop up advocating punishment for wizards or rangers, it's always paladin players that get the hate.
Fine, fine, I'll bow out. I will never be able to understand why people seem to want to unfairly punish a fellow player because he or she wants to play a paladin though. I just don't get where all that hate for these players comes from. I never see these threads pop up advocating punishment for wizards or rangers, it's always paladin players that get the hate.
Because it's generally only Paladin players who take that Code that tells them "Don't be a murderhobo" as a challenge to be a BIGGER MURDERHOBO.
Being a Paladin really isn't that hard with a decent GM. Don't do evil s!@~. Like killing an innocent person.
Fine, fine, I'll bow out. I will never be able to understand why people seem to want to unfairly punish a fellow player because he or she wants to play a paladin though. I just don't get where all that hate for these players comes from. I never see these threads pop up advocating punishment for wizards or rangers, it's always paladin players that get the hate.
How is it hate?
For instance, in my scenerio thw GM did not go out of his way to punish the Oath vs undead paladin. He already created the story and then had the player go and make characters and a guy made a logical choice of an oath vs undead.
The simple fact of the matter is that many of the oaths are horridly written and require you to play a racist and can EASILY put you into lose/lose situatuons. Is a good aligned undead a contrived circumstances? Aftwr all, it does not have the [evil] subtype....
That's not how detect evil works...
Standard Action to cast.
Detects the presence of evil in a 60-ft. cone. The level of evil is determined by how long the paladin remains concentrating on the spell.
Round 1- the Presence of evil.
At this junction, the level and class of the creature would play into effect (Paladin) and her alignment along with it. BOTH would be NOT Evil. You're putting FAR FAR too much emphasis on their sub-type.
There is zero hate here as this is a theoretical situation, and not a real current game situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how detect evil works...Standard Action to cast.
Detects the presence of evil in a 60-ft. cone. The level of evil is determined by how long the paladin remains concentrating on the spell.
Round 1- the Presence of evil.
At this junction, the level and class of the creature would play into effect (Paladin) and her alignment along with it. BOTH would be NOT Evil. You're putting FAR FAR too much emphasis on their sub-type.
No, he isn't. That's a specific quality of the subtype. The succubus pings as Evil, and is a valid Smite target regardless of her alignment.
Due to the oversight that Paladins don't have Detect Good, he wouldn't be able to see that her Aura of Good would likely trump the subtype's aura strength.
Also, for paladins it's a Move to use Detect Evil, and he gets all 3 rounds of info on a single target.
There is zero hate here as this is a theoretical situation, and not a real current game situation.
I hope my post didn't come off as "Hate" or anything like that. I feel alignment of the creature and it's association with a divine class (especially a Paladin) far out ranks that of the creature's sub-type.
That's not how detect evil works...Standard Action to cast.
Detects the presence of evil in a 60-ft. cone. The level of evil is determined by how long the paladin remains concentrating on the spell.
Round 1- the Presence of evil.
At this junction, the level and class of the creature would play into effect (Paladin) and her alignment along with it. BOTH would be NOT Evil. You're putting FAR FAR too much emphasis on their sub-type.
No, he isn't. That's a specific quality of the subtype. The succubus pings as Evil, and is a valid Smite target regardless of her alignment.
Due to the oversight that Paladins don't have Detect Good, he wouldn't be able to see that her Aura of Good would likely trump the subtype's aura strength.
Also, for paladins it's a Move to use Detect Evil, and he gets all 3 rounds of info on a single target.
SO what you're saying is no matter what a creature does, they cannot change alignment sub-type ever? Then why are we even talking about redemption when it's actually impossible? If you're sub-type is ALWAYS going to be Chaotic, Evil then by that standard you cannot EVER act against you're nature.
Either sub-type alignment is being played up far too much OR you've just noticed a serious flaw in the game design. Or, most likely, a combination of both.
Diffan don't worry I wasn't referring to you when I said "hate."
As for how Detect spells work with alignments differing from subtypes, what Rynjin says is RAW, and from a story-telling angle about a succubus trying to stay in the true and narrow while avoiding the enemies of her old home and the misguided zealots of the side of Good, it works it great.
What you propose is a perfectly fine house-rule, of course.
That's not how detect evil works...Standard Action to cast.
Detects the presence of evil in a 60-ft. cone. The level of evil is determined by how long the paladin remains concentrating on the spell.
Round 1- the Presence of evil.
At this junction, the level and class of the creature would play into effect (Paladin) and her alignment along with it. BOTH would be NOT Evil. You're putting FAR FAR too much emphasis on their sub-type.
No, he isn't. That's a specific quality of the subtype. The succubus pings as Evil, and is a valid Smite target regardless of her alignment.
Due to the oversight that Paladins don't have Detect Good, he wouldn't be able to see that her Aura of Good would likely trump the subtype's aura strength.
Also, for paladins it's a Move to use Detect Evil, and he gets all 3 rounds of info on a single target.
SO what you're saying is no matter what a creature does, they cannot change alignment sub-type ever? Then why are we even talking about redemption when it's actually impossible? If you're sub-type is ALWAYS going to be Chaotic, Evil then by that standard you cannot EVER act against you're nature.
Either sub-type alignment is being played up far too much OR you've just noticed a serious flaw in the game design. Or, most likely, a combination of both.
Well the Evil subtype literally means you are MADE of evil material.
That's not how detect evil works...Standard Action to cast.
Detects the presence of evil in a 60-ft. cone. The level of evil is determined by how long the paladin remains concentrating on the spell.
Round 1- the Presence of evil.
At this junction, the level and class of the creature would play into effect (Paladin) and her alignment along with it. BOTH would be NOT Evil. You're putting FAR FAR too much emphasis on their sub-type.
No, he isn't. That's a specific quality of the subtype. The succubus pings as Evil, and is a valid Smite target regardless of her alignment.
Due to the oversight that Paladins don't have Detect Good, he wouldn't be able to see that her Aura of Good would likely trump the subtype's aura strength.
Also, for paladins it's a Move to use Detect Evil, and he gets all 3 rounds of info on a single target.
SO what you're saying is no matter what a creature does, they cannot change alignment sub-type ever? Then why are we even talking about redemption when it's actually impossible? If you're sub-type is ALWAYS going to be Chaotic, Evil then by that standard you cannot EVER act against you're nature.
Either sub-type alignment is being played up far too much OR you've just noticed a serious flaw in the game design. Or, most likely, a combination of both.
You misunderstand how this works. Having an evil subtype merely makes it exceptionally DIFFICULT to change your alignment and rise above depravity. The succubus had to wrestle against her instincts daily to slowly transition into Neutral and then Good.
Actually, the scenario as proposed is BS. Smite evil would not have worked, and the succubus' DR would have kept it alive from the first hit at least.
Smite Evil (Su)
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
After that the paladin would realize something was up because he wasn't cutting through the demons' DR even with smite. Then the villagers and succubus would explain she wasn't evil. The paladin would be inclined to believe her because his smite was not working.
Not how RAW works. It really sucks to be succubus paladin.
As a creature with alignment subtypes, she is always treated as those alignments, in addition to being treated as her actual alignments. All magic circles work again her, as do all alignment Smites, and all alignment detects, etc. I am less sure about Blasphemy and Holy Word due to the wording of the spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how detect evil works...Standard Action to cast.
Detects the presence of evil in a 60-ft. cone. The level of evil is determined by how long the paladin remains concentrating on the spell.
Round 1- the Presence of evil.
At this junction, the level and class of the creature would play into effect (Paladin) and her alignment along with it. BOTH would be NOT Evil. You're putting FAR FAR too much emphasis on their sub-type.
No, he isn't. That's a specific quality of the subtype. The succubus pings as Evil, and is a valid Smite target regardless of her alignment.
Due to the oversight that Paladins don't have Detect Good, he wouldn't be able to see that her Aura of Good would likely trump the subtype's aura strength.
Also, for paladins it's a Move to use Detect Evil, and he gets all 3 rounds of info on a single target.
SO what you're saying is no matter what a creature does, they cannot change alignment sub-type ever? Then why are we even talking about redemption when it's actually impossible? If you're sub-type is ALWAYS going to be Chaotic, Evil then by that standard you cannot EVER act against you're nature.
Either Type/sub-type alignment is being played up far too much OR you've just noticed a serious flaw in the game design. Or, most likely, a combination of both.
Subtype and morality are not the same thing.
Types are WHAT you are.
Morals are WHO you are.
Your Lawful Good Half-Orc Paladin is a Humanoid with the Human and Orc subtypes. If he falls by becoming Lawful Neutral, he is still Humanoid (Human, Orc).
Same dealy with the Succubus. That sub-type is a core part of her RACE. It is a racial quality that she always pings as evil, and is affected as if evil by spell effects and whatnot (which in some ways is an advantage...say if the evil Cleric casts Unholy Blight on her, it has no effect).
Have you ever watched like, Angel or something? The Buffy spin-off?
He's a Good aligned Vampire. Holy Water still burns.
Smite is the Succubus' Holy Water.
Actually, the scenario as proposed is BS. Smite evil would not have worked, and the succubus' DR would have kept it alive from the first hit at least.
Smite Evil (Su)
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
After that the paladin would realize something was up because he wasn't cutting through the demons' DR even with smite. Then the villagers and succubus would explain she wasn't evil. The paladin would be inclined to believe her because his smite was not working.
[edit]
The succubus wouldn't detect as evil or chaotic either:
An evil aura's power depends on the type of evil creature or object that you're detecting and its HD, caster level, or (in the case of a cleric) class level; see the table below. If an aura falls into more than one strength category, the spell indicates the stronger of the two.
Read the Evil subtype, please.
A class is not an effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how detect evil works...Standard Action to cast.
Detects the presence of evil in a 60-ft. cone. The level of evil is determined by how long the paladin remains concentrating on the spell.
Round 1- the Presence of evil.
At this junction, the level and class of the creature would play into effect (Paladin) and her alignment along with it. BOTH would be NOT Evil. You're putting FAR FAR too much emphasis on their sub-type.
No, he isn't. That's a specific quality of the subtype. The succubus pings as Evil, and is a valid Smite target regardless of her alignment.
Due to the oversight that Paladins don't have Detect Good, he wouldn't be able to see that her Aura of Good would likely trump the subtype's aura strength.
Also, for paladins it's a Move to use Detect Evil, and he gets all 3 rounds of info on a single target.
SO what you're saying is no matter what a creature does, they cannot change alignment sub-type ever? Then why are we even talking about redemption when it's actually impossible? If you're sub-type is ALWAYS going to be Chaotic, Evil then by that standard you cannot EVER act against you're nature.
Either sub-type alignment is being played up far too much OR you've just noticed a serious flaw in the game design. Or, most likely, a combination of both.
there is a way, they have to completely change what they are to a different outsider, read "The Redemption Engine" for more details
the process can take up to a century or two to complete
|
|
The code says she must be lawful good (which she is) and that she can't commit an evil act.
Committing an evil act isn't the same thing as being (or counting as) evil.
EDIT: The trick is that a creature with alignment subtypes counts both as their actual alignment and as the alignment(s) associated with their subtypes. Also I'm pretty sure that the code of conduct isn't an effect either, but even if it were, it wouldn't actually prevent the succubus paladin.
...People seem to be confusing the OPs Paladin with MY Paladin I mentioned a couple of times (mine being the one with no ranks in Kn. Planes).
As for your options being "kill it immediately or freeze on the spot", b&@$*$~!. Nobody said he needed to have a conversation with the Succubus, unless you consider this a conversation.
Paladin: "Surrender or die."
If the succubus doesn't surrender, then the Paladin is more justified in killing it.
Technically speaking this doesn't even take a combat round. If the succubus surrenders, combat is over. There is no Initiative order to be held to, and she can drop prone with her hands behind her head with no issue.
And if the succubus doesn't surrender? The paladin might be swamped with charmed villagers trying to protect their "friend" while the succubus enchants or kills the paladin or simply escapes.
Calling for surrender isn't a no-risk option.
And if in the setting redeemed fiends are so vanishingly rare that most people (including the paladin) don't believe it's possible, you're weighing a very big chance of committing evil act "allowing a terribly evil creature get away to sow more death and destruction" vs a vanishingly small chance of committing the evil act "killing an innocent succubus"
And this is an assessment that is made very quickly.
There was a case in my hometown growing up where a police officer fatally shot a fellow officer in plainclothes because he the latter drew a gun at the scene of a violent crime. Cases like this are not uncommon - in fact the NYPD colour-codes their undercover officers in order to protect them from friendly fire.
These incidents are tragic, and the officers responsible have made grave mistakes, but that doesn't mean that they have committed evil acts.
@Weirdo: incorrect, if the paladin breaks the oath but not the standard paladin code, he doesn't fall, he just loses the oath specific powers.
If he breaks the paladin code, he loses all the powers, oath included.
You're right, I didn't read far enough in the description. Citation:
If a paladin violates the code of her oath, she loses the class abilities associated with that oath until she atones. If she violates her paladin’s code, she loses her oath abilities as well as her other paladin abilities.
So an oathbound paladin who knowingly kills a succubus paladin or friendly neighbourhood vampire falls, but if they put aside the oath in the interest of the greater good they merely lose their oath features
You know, there is a reason my paladin has the Merciful enchantment in his weapon.
Fiends are not immune to non-lethal damage ;)
You know, there is a reason my paladin has the Merciful enchantment in his weapon.
Fiends are not immune to non-lethal damage ;)
Seems a waste. Merciful is available with Weapon Bond.
Yea, but I can now use that +1 which would've been used on Merciful in something else instead, like flaming.
I find that a default "stun" setting makes it much less likely for your mistakes to translate into deaths..
Seems a waste. Merciful is available with Weapon Bond.You know, there is a reason my paladin has the Merciful enchantment in his weapon.
Fiends are not immune to non-lethal damage ;)
Even better, Blade of Mercy is an option. Technically restricted to worshipers of Sarenrae, but I think it's pretty easy to say that if someone really wants to work on dealing non-lethal damage that it's fair to let them have this trait without worshiping her.
I've been calling it "hate" because when people say "the paladin should fall", that's the same as saying "that player should lose his/her character". It's a bit mean, because people on these boards only make the argument that a player should have their character taken away from them when that player is playing a paladin.
Let's make it equitable: every time a wizard's player mistakenly includes a party member in the radius of an attack spell, the GM should take their character away. Every time a cleric's player fails to heal a party member in time, the GM should take their character away. Every time a rogue's player forgets to check for traps and sets one off by mistake, the GM should take their character away. Not so fair now is it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been calling it "hate" because when people say "the paladin should fall", that's the same as saying "that player should lose his/her character". It's a bit mean, because people on these boards only make the argument that a player should have their character taken away from them when that player is playing a paladin.
This is wrong on literally every level.
1.) It's not mean. The Paladin has a Code. The player knows he has a Code when he picks the class. Don't break the Code, you won't fall. If you can break the Code and not fall, why have a Code?
2.) I didn't realize "Has to pay for an Atonement" was equivalent to losing your character.
Let's make it equitable: every time a wizard's player mistakenly includes a party member in the radius of an attack spell, the GM should take their character away. Every time a cleric's player fails to heal a party member in time, the GM should take their character away. Every time a rogue's player forgets to check for traps and sets one off by mistake, the GM should take their character away. Not so fair now is it?
Oh f~~& off with this.
The Paladin doesn't fall for making a mistake, and it has nothing to do with combat stuff. He falls for willingly deciding to murder someone who isn't attacking him.
I've been calling it "hate" because when people say "the paladin should fall", that's the same as saying "that player should lose his/her character". It's a bit mean, because people on these boards only make the argument that a player should have their character taken away from them when that player is playing a paladin.
Let's make it equitable: every time a wizard's player mistakenly includes a party member in the radius of an attack spell, the GM should take their character away. Every time a cleric's player fails to heal a party member in time, the GM should take their character away. Every time a rogue's player forgets to check for traps and sets one off by mistake, the GM should take their character away. Not so fair now is it?
well maybe if the paladin thought before acting like a murderhobo he wouldn't have fallen for killing an innocent and your argument with the wizard, cleric, and rogue is rather childish and it screams of a temper tantrum
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we not call each other names please?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of debating an obvious trap scenario, I instead pose this question:
If a paladin falls in the forest and there's no-one around... Then how the hell did he fall in the first place?
Obama did it of course.Instead of debating an obvious trap scenario, I instead pose this question:
If a paladin falls in the forest and there's no-one around... Then how the hell did he fall in the first place?
OF COURSE!